Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)
, the senate majority leader, harry reid attacked it on tuesday. >> everyone has to look at the source where it comes from. a source that has brought up a lot of non-issues. i've told you how i feel about the source of this stuff. and it's really, very very typical for the source. >> bill: now, all fair minded americans will presume that senator menendez is innocent until proven guilty of any allegations, but in general, exploiting children is the worst possible scenario for any politician, and the evidence shows that he did not disclose about the jet trips, but that's a trifle compared to the under age always. they held it back for some time. but now, the story has advanced far beyond the rumor stage, and as an american, i hope that he had nothing to do with exploiting children, i hope. fox's news hour with laura ingram, and how do you read this. >> well, if the allegations are true, he's going to have to step down. >> bill: he'll go to prison. >> yes, we're talking about politics for a moment. and harry reid, i understand that he wants to write off anything that the daily caller is saying,
, we're talking about politics for a moment. and harry reid, i understand that he wants to write off anything that the daily caller is saying, and they backed off everything said for the day, but basically, they're punching on anything said before senator menendez. when you're a public official and elected, six, seven weeks ago by the people of your state to represent them, you have to hold yourself out as someone worthy of the trust of the public. and the late payments for the jet trips not withstanding, he violated senate ethics rules by not reporting those as significant gifts, and that in and of itself is serious. >> bill: he took the trips in august of 2010, and reimbursed the government in january of 2013, after the daily caller exposed the story. >> what it reminds me of a little bit is what happened with the john edwards story. of course one publication, the national enquirer was covering it, and pretty much every stayed away from it, and poo pooed it, and a significant time later, the national inquirer was right and they had done good reporting. i don't know the background o
reid yesterday filed a motion to limit debate and force vote on the hagel nomination. harry reid said today, though, that republicans are mounting a full-scale filibuster of the hagel nomination. he said that there's never been a filibuster of a secretary of defense in the country's history. discussion on the nomination continues. senator leahy on the senate floor now and that is live on c-span2. also coming up live on booktv.org later today at 7:00 p.m. eastern, stephen hess who wrote "whatever happened to the washington reporters: 1978-2012." he interviewed journalist who is were covered the federal government and washington and 30 years later talked to 283 of those to find out where things went on in their career and the fields they covered. that discussion with stephen hess gets under way at 7:00 and that's at booktv.org. >> we have a habit in this country, if i may say, now of glossing over presidents. we decided, some people, that they're balancedying -- bald eagles and they have to be treated as symbols of the country. what that means, though, is you have -- you have a smoothin
haven't seen a solution from the president or harry reid. the republicans have put our plan on the table and passed it through the house of representatives. now it is incumbent upon the president to show leadership. >> let's turn to hagel. the nomination of course something taken up once the break is over. this is bob woodward on fox news talking about democratic senators calling the white house asking if hagel was going to withdraw. this is what he said was the white house response. >> the answer is an emphatic no. remember john urlicman used to talk about twisting slowly in the wind. >> why wouldn't the white house jump to hagel's defense? >> i think they have. had john mccain out this weekend. the expectation is that senator hagel is going to -- that vote is going to happen and he will be our next secretary of defense. what i think is deplorable and john mccain was very honest this weekend and part of what prompted some of democrat's questions. republicans made it clear this is a grudge match. lindsey graham is saying he is not going to vote on this or won't move on this until he find
should not have to move a third bill before the senate gets off their ass and does something. >> harry reid had a retort. >> i was raised in a little town that had 13 brothels in it so i'm used to salty language. i think he should understand who is sitting on their posterior. we're doing our best to pass something. the speaker is doing nothing to try to pass anything over there. >> that was a good -- >> stephanie: i'm sorry you had to hear me say posterior. >> that was rude. >> his mom did laundry in the brothels in search like nevada. i did not know. >> stephanie: i'm not the one -- >> that's a big -- >> stephanie: now look what you've made me do. >> make quite a mess. >> not that i would know. >> stephanie: if it is a small one, can do you it by hand. [ ♪ circus ♪ ] >> there is a line that you have to go up to. >> stephanie: me, over the line. at least i didn't say scrub your nub. that was yesterday's story. story about a guy -- all right never mind. >> standards and practices sent us a letter about that by the way. >> oh, dear. >> we're disappointed. >> stephanie: knocked me rig
senate and harry reid is in no position to point fingers at people for inaction, right? >> we ought to pass a budget and we're going to pass a budget this year. but let's also lack at the fact that there's not a single plan out there. i've been involved in every one of these bipartisan plans that hasn't said, you need about, on the minimum, about $1.2 trillion if you're going to do a new revenue, if you're going to do a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. i'm all for believing we have boot got to do more entitlement reform, but we have to do more revenues as well. and opposed to going through all of these stupid cuts, not only have we heard about 750,000 lost jobs, but in certain cases, we'll cost the taxpayers money. when we buy ten tanks, we get a volume discount. we'll break those contracts. when you do four years of cancer research, and don't get the first three years, you'll flush that. that's less meat and eggs going to the grocery store, driving up grocery prices. this was set up to be the stupidest of all options. whoever dreamed it up, who knows at this point, but at this p
Search Results 0 to 10 of about 11 (some duplicates have been removed)